Online casino gambling in the U.S. would be outlawed — including in New Jersey and the other two states that offer it — should bipartisan bills introduced in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on Wednesday be passed and signed into law.

U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., are among the sponsors of the Restoration of America’s Wire Act, which would reverse a 2011 opinion by the Department of Justice that a 50-year-old law regulating gambling applied only to sports betting online and not to online poker, slots, roulette or other games found in casinos.

“Many online gambling sites fail to screen for underage gamblers, do nothing to prevent money-laundering and offer no recourse for fraud or other criminal acts,” Feinstein said in a statement. “For most Americans, including children, gambling sites are only a few clicks away, and I believe Congress has a responsibility to prevent abuses from occurring.”

There has been a push to overturn the 2011 Justice ruling for more than two years. But the movement has gained steam in recent months with the financial backing of powerful billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a major Republican Party donor and casino mogul ranked by Forbes as the eighth-richest man in the world at more than $40 billion.

“Anytime Sheldon Adelson gets behind an issue, it’s a threat,” conceded state Sen. Ray Lesniak, D-Union, who led the fight in New Jersey to legalize online gaming as well as a so-far-unsuccessful effort to bring sports betting to the state’s racetracks and to the Atlantic City casinos.

“But our entire congressional delegation has the firepower to stop it with at least a ‘grandfather’ [clause],” Lesniak added.

Even so, Lesniak said, a bill that prevented more states from legalizing online gambling would “take away opportunities to compact with other states and get more revenues.” Multi-state lotteries such as Powerball have offered exponentially higher jackpots than single-state games, and the same could happen with online slot machines, for example, if Internet gaming remains an option for every state.

The bill would not affect Internet betting on horse races, which was occurring before the 2011 interpretation of the Wire Act to permit online casino gambling.

“Blanket prohibition of Internet gaming will empower black-market operators at the expense of responsible states like New Jersey, which have invested in creating a secure Internet gaming structure,” Sen. Bob Menendez said in a statement. “This bill would have the perverse effect of putting millions of American poker players at risk while doing nothing to prevent minors from playing online, combat fraud or crack down on other illegal activities. Simply put, blanket prohibition of Internet gaming is a futile attempt to apply an antiquated approach to a 21st-century issue.”

Cory Booker, New Jersey’s other Democratic senator, agreed.

“States such as New Jersey have acted responsibly and invested in creating a structured, secure and regulated environment for online gaming,” said a Booker spokesman. “Senator Booker opposes this legislation, because it would drive Internet gambling underground — where there are no protections for consumers and no measures to prevent minors from taking part.”

John Pappas, president of the Poker Players Alliance that represents traditional and online players, called the bill “a misguided attempt at prohibition” that would strip residents and visitors of a chance to play online poker in New Jersey, Nevada and Delaware — as well as other states that are now considering adding the gambling.

In 2009, Menendez introduced a bill that would regulate and tax online poker in the U.S. While that bill languished, the 2011 Justice opinion opened the door for any state to allow online casino gambling. Nevada began offering online poker-only last spring, and last fall Delaware and then New Jersey legalized online wagering on any casino game.

The state so far has collected a modest $4.2 million in tax revenue from online gaming’s debut in late November through February. That figure is below industry analysts’ expectations, due in part to reluctance by many large banks and credit card companies to process deposits and to “geolocation” issues that have inaccurately rejected player attempts to log on because the technology did not confirm that the player was within the state’s borders as required.

The proposed ban on Internet casino gambling differs from Congress’s 1992 law that barred states from offering sports betting — while “grandfathering in” Nevada’s extensive sports betting as well as permitting the limited versions offered at the time in Delaware, Oregon and Wyoming. That law also made an exception for New Jersey, which at the time was the only state besides Nevada that had casinos. New Jersey was given a one-year “window” to pass sports betting legislation, but the deadline passed without a vote in Trenton.

A number of members of Congress at that time sought a 50-state ban, but Nevada was able to keep its sports betting in part, lawmakers said, because sports betting and the casino industry had been a significant component of the state’s economy for decades.

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican who is one of 10 House members sponsoring an identical bill to the Senate’s, said that “fundamental changes” such as allowing online casino gambling must go through Congress.

“By restoring the original interpretation of the Wire Act, we are putting the genie back in the bottle and allowing for an open debate to take place,” said Chaffetz at a press conference with Graham.

Online casino gambling in the U.S. would be outlawed — including in New Jersey and the other two states that offer it — should bipartisan bills introduced in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on Wednesday be passed and signed into law.

U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., are among the sponsors of the Restoration of America’s Wire Act, which would reverse a 2011 opinion by the Department of Justice that a 50-year-old law regulating gambling applied only to sports betting online and not to online poker, slots, roulette or other games found in casinos.

“Many online gambling sites fail to screen for underage gamblers, do nothing to prevent money-laundering and offer no recourse for fraud or other criminal acts,” Feinstein said in a statement. “For most Americans, including children, gambling sites are only a few clicks away, and I believe Congress has a responsibility to prevent abuses from occurring.”

There has been a push to overturn the 2011 Justice ruling for more than two years. But the movement has gained steam in recent months with the financial backing of powerful billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a major Republican Party donor and casino mogul ranked by Forbes as the eighth-richest man in the world at more than $40 billion.

“Anytime Sheldon Adelson gets behind an issue, it’s a threat,” conceded state Sen. Ray Lesniak, D-Union, who led the fight in New Jersey to legalize online gaming as well as a so-far-unsuccessful effort to bring sports betting to the state’s racetracks and to the Atlantic City casinos.

“But our entire congressional delegation has the firepower to stop it with at least a ‘grandfather’ [clause],” Lesniak added.

Even so, Lesniak said, a bill that prevented more states from legalizing online gambling would “take away opportunities to compact with other states and get more revenues.” Multi-state lotteries such as Powerball have offered exponentially higher jackpots than single-state games, and the same could happen with online slot machines, for example, if Internet gaming remains an option for every state.

The bill would not affect Internet betting on horse races, which was occurring before the 2011 interpretation of the Wire Act to permit online casino gambling.

“Blanket prohibition of Internet gaming will empower black-market operators at the expense of responsible states like New Jersey, which have invested in creating a secure Internet gaming structure,” Sen. Bob Menendez said in a statement. “This bill would have the perverse effect of putting millions of American poker players at risk while doing nothing to prevent minors from playing online, combat fraud or crack down on other illegal activities. Simply put, blanket prohibition of Internet gaming is a futile attempt to apply an antiquated approach to a 21st-century issue.”

Cory Booker, New Jersey’s other Democratic senator, agreed.

“States such as New Jersey have acted responsibly and invested in creating a structured, secure and regulated environment for online gaming,” said a Booker spokesman. “Senator Booker opposes this legislation, because it would drive Internet gambling underground — where there are no protections for consumers and no measures to prevent minors from taking part.”

John Pappas, president of the Poker Players Alliance that represents traditional and online players, called the bill “a misguided attempt at prohibition” that would strip residents and visitors of a chance to play online poker in New Jersey, Nevada and Delaware — as well as other states that are now considering adding the gambling.

In 2009, Menendez introduced a bill that would regulate and tax online poker in the U.S. While that bill languished, the 2011 Justice opinion opened the door for any state to allow online casino gambling. Nevada began offering online poker-only last spring, and last fall Delaware and then New Jersey legalized online wagering on any casino game.

The state so far has collected a modest $4.2 million in tax revenue from online gaming’s debut in late November through February. That figure is below industry analysts’ expectations, due in part to reluctance by many large banks and credit card companies to process deposits and to “geolocation” issues that have inaccurately rejected player attempts to log on because the technology did not confirm that the player was within the state’s borders as required.

The proposed ban on Internet casino gambling differs from Congress’s 1992 law that barred states from offering sports betting — while “grandfathering in” Nevada’s extensive sports betting as well as permitting the limited versions offered at the time in Delaware, Oregon and Wyoming. That law also made an exception for New Jersey, which at the time was the only state besides Nevada that had casinos. New Jersey was given a one-year “window” to pass sports betting legislation, but the deadline passed without a vote in Trenton.

A number of members of Congress at that time sought a 50-state ban, but Nevada was able to keep its sports betting in part, lawmakers said, because sports betting and the casino industry had been a significant component of the state’s economy for decades.

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican who is one of 10 House members sponsoring an identical bill to the Senate’s, said that “fundamental changes” such as allowing online casino gambling must go through Congress.

“By restoring the original interpretation of the Wire Act, we are putting the genie back in the bottle and allowing for an open debate to take place,” said Chaffetz at a press conference with Graham.